1 2026:CGHC:1088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 577 of 2022 Raghaw Singh S/o Nageshwar Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 45, Near Vikram Kirana Shop Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Prasunvya Singh W/o Raghaw Singh Aged About 24 Years Residence Of Village Chhirha, Nawagaonkala, Post Chhirha, P.S. Dhadi,tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Awartan Singh S/o Raghaw Singh Aged About 5 Years Through Is Legal Mother Smt. Prasunvya Singh. Residence Of Village Chhirha, Nawagaonkala, Post Chhirha, P.S. Dhadi,tahsil And District – Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MJC No. 84/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-, 5,000/-, total Rs. 10,000/- from the applicant on the ground of cruelty and dowry. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent No.1 marriage was solemnized with applicant/non applicant on dated 26.04.2016 in village Chhirha, Nawagaonkala, Tahsil &, District Bemetara in custom of Saptapadi and thereafter respondent living in the house of the her husband and thereafter as per the alleged by the respondent that the applicant demanded dowry. It is further alleged by the respondent that the mother-in-law Smt. Pratibha Singh has also demanded dowry. As per the further alleged by the respondent that the applicant husband and his mother assaulted the respondent No.1 and the applicant harassing physically and mentally. On dated 12.10.2017 one child was born who is respondent No.2. As per the respondent No. 1 submitted a salary slip exhibits P/1 which show that in the month of February 2022 the salary was Rs. 30,929/- and after deduction Rs. 25,187/- was received by the applicant. In the present case the applicant not filed the reply because as per the order dated 05.04.2022 the registered notice was send to the applicant but as per the order sheet the applicant denied to received the notice therefore the ex-party proceeding has been against the applicant. The learned Family Court has granted 4,000/-rupees to respondent No.1 and 2,000/- rupees to respondent No.2. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent 3 is voluntarily residing separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason, thus, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not liable to be granted any maintenance from her husband. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MJC No. 84/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting 4 interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar